In my opinion, if you want to know what's wrong with this country, all you have to do is follow the liberals. When I look at liberal policy prescriptions in total, the inevitable conclusion I reach is - liberals want to destroy America and replace it with a top-down socialist model that has failed time after time all over the world, and is failing all over Europe as we speak. I have no idea why they want to do this. I only know they DO want to do it. They rail against capitalism and free markets, They rail against opportunity and success. They rail against job creators and business. They rail against individual liberty. They rail against religion and traditional morality. Their policies have destroyed marriage and families. They have institutionalized poverty and fostered record government dependence. They have weakened the fiber of the nation, raised the cost of living, and expanded government beyond our capability to pay for it. They would tax us straight into third-world status, but instead of repenting for what they have done, liberals think the problem is that they just haven't done enough of it yet. It's mind-boggling to me.

Here's my rule - If liberals advocate it, it's probably bad for America. The rule holds true about 7-8 times out of 10.

President Obama warned the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels. Obama said such usage would be a "game changer", that a "red line" would be crossed if Assad used WMD.

Now, it appears Assad has used WMD. Both British and US intelligence say they have evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons. If this is true, Obama's line in the sand has been crossed. Here's a statement from the White House:

Authorities believe neither brother, both Russian-born ethnic Chechens, had links to terror groups...officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

I'm reading all sorts of wild speculation on the internet about how the Boston authorities created a police state in their hunt for the Boston bombing suspect. Online Chicken Littles, whose legal expertise must come from watching episodes of Law And Order on the boob tube, think the Boston authorities acted in violation of the Constitution when they went on a house-to-house search for the bomber without first obtaining warrants. I'm also hearing about how the evil United States is going to strip the bomber of his civil rights by not mirandizing him, and then we're going to make him an enemy combatant so we can torture him and stick him in Gitmo until the end of time. Pretty doubtful.

I was perusing the website of the Tax Foundation, and I discovered Tax Freedom Day in 2013 was April 18th. That means Americans worked an average of 108 days out of the year just to pay their taxes. It also means this:

"...Americans will pay more in taxes in 2013 than they will spend on food, clothing, and housing combined.”

The Manchin-Toomey bill expanding background checks for guns went down to defeat on wednesday, by a vote of 54-46. 60 votes were needed for passage.The bill would have required background checks for firearms sold online and at gun shows.

The progressive Salon website wrote an article titled "Let's Hope The Boston Marathon Bomber Is A White American". No kidding. They really did. Curious as to why race would matter to this liberal braintrust (by" braintrust", I mean i trust they have brains, despite all evidence to the contrary), I found the following bizarre logic:

"white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for [mass killings] — even though most come at the hands of white dudes. Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters".

You've probably heard by now, somebody set off two bombs at the finish line of yesterday's Boston Marathon, killing at least three people and injuring 140 others, many of them critically. Another.senseless act of terrorism, proving nothing, other than the inhumanity and barbarity of the perpetrator(s).

President Obama said we will find out who did this and bring "the full weight of justice" down upon them. I hope so. The President also said we will find out why this was done. That's all well and good, but I'm to the point where I care less and less about the "why". I'm just tired of this crap. Whatever the reason is why the bomber(s) chose to randomly target innocent people, there is no cause that will explain away or justify such actions. Whatever the "cause" was, assuming there was one, that cause was set back immeasurably yesterday. I don't much care whether the bomber was motivated by Islamic Yee-hawd (9/11 and many other attacks), the right to life (Olympic bombing), anti-government rebellion (Timoty McVeigh), pushback against technology (Unabomber), or protesting a war (Weather Underground). I don't care, because once you kill innocent people for your frigging "cause", you become nothing but a murderer. All that matters at that point is thinning your murderous hide from the human herd. My view is 'WE have rules in society, killer(s), and YOU broke them. Sayonara'.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people's emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has passed away at age 87. Rest in peace. She is considered Brittain's greatest Prime Minister since WWII.

Thatcher was famously dubbed "The Iron Lady" by the Russians following an anti-Soviet defense speech she gave in 1976, but today I'd like to focus on a different Thatcher speech, one on economic matters. It's referred to as "the lady's not for turning", or "the reason why". In this speech, Thatcher touches on several points that illustrate the problem with left-wing economic policy, and I agree with her on these matters. One of my major areas of disagreement with the left is about economics.

Here we are in year five of the Obama "recovery". I guess that's another word we'll have to redefine in the Obama era, because it no longer means what it used to mean. "Recovery" used to mean, you know, recovery. But now, a "recovery" means high unemployment, rising prices, shrinking wages, and massive deficts and debt. In the age of Obama, recovery looks a lot like disaster.

The latest gun control brainstorm from Democrats is a proposal to force gun owners to carry liability insurance or pay a $10,000 fine. This follows a $25 gun tax implemented by Chicago Democrats. With President Obama's gun control measures looking like they will fail to be adopted, Democrats are going to Plan B, which consists of attempts to make gun ownership more expensive and to wage the gun control fight at the state and local level.

The irony of Democrat efforts to make gun ownership more expensive is rich. First of all, such a policy is extremely regressive, meaning the cost burden falls most heavily on those who can least afford it. If you recall, Democrats spent 2012 screaming "racist !!!" at Republicans over voter ID laws. It was the position of Democrats that ID's costing three bucks or so (and in most cases voter ID laws could be complied with for free) was tantamount to voter suppression of minorities. It was a ridiculous assertion, but now Democrats are proposing major regressive cost hikes on guns. By the Democrats' own definition, Democrats are being racist by suppressing the Second Amendment rights of minorities. But I bet you'll never hear about this on the news, and you'll definitely never hear about it on liberal websites.

Last week, the Florida House of Representatives was debating an Infants Born Alive bill, which would address situations where a child was born and living following a failed abortion attempt. Planned Parenthood representatives were on hand to argue that the bill would make it harder for women to receive abortions. I have to admit, the Planned Parenthood reps do have a point, albeit one only a serial killer would attempt to make. Live babies wriggling around on abortion tables do tend to, um, "complicate" matters, don't they ?

Enter Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow, a kind and compassionate woman who testified that it's up to the mother and her doctor whether living, breathing babies should be murdered or not: